search_sources

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verbs '检索' and '返回' clearly indicate a non-destructive read operation that returns candidate IDs, which is useful context. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or details such as pagination or how time-window boundaries are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence conveys the action, scope, filtering dimensions, and return format with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and ends with the concrete return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core selection criteria (keyword and time window) and return format, and an output schema exists for return values. However, with no annotations and no parameter-level docs, it leaves limit semantics and date format unspecified, so it is only minimally complete for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for the main parameters: '关键词' maps to query and '时间窗' maps to date_from/date_to. It does not explain the limit parameter or the expected date string format, leaving some of the schema under-explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('检索' / search), a resource ('用户本人的记录候选' / the user's own record candidates), and a constraint set (keyword plus time window), with an explicit return of '[A{id}]' IDs. It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like search_hypothesis_evidence, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: use this tool when searching the user's own record candidates by keyword and time window. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares with sibling search tools such as search_hypothesis_evidence or get_topic_timeline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.